Illustration: Jeff Hopkins.

The United States Supreme Court’s June 25, 2013 decision, Shelby County v. Holder, struck down Section 4 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, eliminating a “preclearance” coverage formula that had subjected numerous jurisdictions with checkered voting rights histories to the U.S. Department of Justice’s oversight.  Although the decision allows Congress to create a new coverage formula, in today’s political climate that appears unlikely.   While the preclearance system was often associated with deep Southern states like Alabama and Mississippi, in 1971 three New York City counties – Bronx, Kings and New York – were added as covered jurisdictions, and since then the DOJ has blocked New York voting laws on several occasions to protect the rights of minority voters.  This article examines Shelby County v. Holder, its consequences for minority voting rights across the country, particularly in New York, and possible local remedies in the event of Congressional inaction.

(more…)

The NYPD to house Joint Operations Command Center in building adjoining One Police Plaza. In 2000, the New York Police Department planned to demolish a two-story building at 109 Park Row in Manhattan and replace it with a nine-story building. After September 11, 2001, the NYPD decided instead to renovate the existing building and create a $13.8 million, 22,000 sq.ft. Joint Operations Command Center. The command center would operate as a state-of-the-art crisis response situation room that would enhance the NYPD’s ability to respond effectively to emergency situations. The building, previously used as a 911 call center, parking garage, and storage facility, was vacated in 2000 to make way for the original construction project.

Chinatown residents, concerned about the project’s effect on traffic and parking, filed an Article 78 petition. They argued the project was subject to the City’s land use review process because it qualified as a site selection for a capital project. They also argued that the NYPD failed to prepare an environmental assessment statement as required by the State’s and City’s environmental review laws. (more…)

Council approved plan after City agreed to work with interest groups on related zoning and development issues. On November 19, 2008, the City Council approved the City’s plan to rezone 111 blocks in the East Village and Lower East Side of Manhattan. The plan calls for seven new zoning districts, including a 59-block residential area which would be rezoned to R8B, a category that limits building heights to 75ft. The area is, in general, bounded by East 13th Street, Avenue D, Delancey Street, and Third Avenue. 5 CityLand 123 (Sept. 15, 2008).

Prior to Council review, the City Planning Commission unanimously voted to approve the rezoning after a contentious public hearing. The Commission found that the height, setback, and bulk controls of the new contextual districts would help preserve the low- to mid-rise tenement and rowhouse character of the area. The Commission, contrary to the views of many who spoke in opposition, favored higher density districts along Chrystie Street, Delancey Street, and Avenue D, noting that the districts were located along wide streets well-served by public transit. The Commission dismissed the idea of including Chinatown and the east side of the Bowery in the rezoning, stating that each area had a distinctive character and, as such, each required its own planning analysis. The Commission also rejected the community’s call for anti-harassment provisions to be included in the proposed zoning text, noting that Local Law 7 of 2008 already affords tenants the protection the community had sought. (more…)

City Planning’s proposal challenged by issues related to affordable housing and protecting Chinatown. On August 13, 2008, the City Planning Commission heard extensive testimony on a plan to rezone 111 blocks in the East Village and Lower East Side of Manhattan. The Department of City Planning began the public review process for the original proposal in May 2008, 5 CityLand 72 (June 15, 2008), and then later filed modifications after reviewing Community Board 3’s recommendations. The modifications apply the Inclusionary Housing Program to certain proposed R7A areas, replace a portion of a C6-2A zoning district with a C6-3A district along Chrystie Street, and eliminate a text change designed to encourage non-conforming commercial uses in the mid-block areas of proposed R8B districts.

At the hearing, Council Member Rosie Mendez testified that a plan was needed to stem over-development and stop the loss of affordable housing in her district. Mendez believes that the current plan, with some modifications and additions, can achieve the right balance of “development, preservation, and tenant protection.” David McWater, Susan Stetzer, and Dominic Pisciotta, all from Community Board 3, stressed the need to include the anti-harassment and anti-demolition restrictions that govern the Special Clinton District, and also requested that the City commit to ensuring that 30 percent of housing built under the new zoning be permanently affordable to households earning less than 80 percent of the area medium income. (more…)